I don't care if you/like/ it. If you buy it or download it, you are giving them monetary and mindshare resources to continue to punish their customers and act improperly.

When they are penniless, perhaps they will see the error of their ways. Probably not, but then no one will give a fuck about them any more, and they can do no more harm.

In short, STOP feeding the monster.

INSTEAD, buy/download music from GOOD actors in the market. Support them in spite of the BAD actors. Support the artists directly. Never support any labels unless they eschew being part of organizations like RIAA and ASCAP.

I have done this for over twenty years. I am very happy with the music that is available to me, and also very happy that I don't support the bad actors in any way, shape or form. Indeed, I do all I can to put them out of business.

It's a GOOD problem for people to have to actually put some work into a project on their end before coming to the community and asking for money.

Like has been said better by others above, ideas are a dime a dozen. People who have put forth a great deal of up-front effort on their own to get their idea to at least a presentable stage, even if it presently looks like crap, should have a better time getting funded. It shows that they are serious, at least basically capable, and can actually produce/something/.

Anybody who pays someone on KS, IGG, or any other crowdfunding project based solely on an idea pitch is pissing their money away in the vast majority of cases.

I have some plans to do crowdfunded projects in the near future, but I am not even looking into it seriously until I have something at least marginably playable so people to be able to get some idea of what is being done and where I want to take it. It also helps me get a basic idea of what kind of effort it is going to take to get the project realized and what it may cost.

Games and gamer culture were already well on their way to inclusion of females in various contexts long before the Anitas and Zoes were out of diapers, and will likely continue unabated despite them and their detractors. From players to developers, to games specifically gender-neutral or targeted towards women, it's already happening. That a small percentage of games cater to a certain male-dominated demographic (which has been around since the dawn of gaming), or contain certain representations which some females find offensive for whatever reason, shouldn't paint the rest of the industry as non-inclusive. Personally, even as a male, I don't care for those games; I find them base and puerile, but I deal with it simply by not buying or playing them. I certainly don't care if they are made or if anyone else plays them or not.

The vast majority of gamers either don't know about this crap or don't care -- they just want to be left alone to enjoy their hobby without a bunch of culture warrior idiots and douchebags telling them "you're over" and screwing with the games they are harmlessly enjoying. That is what I think tends to infuriate gamers which would otherwise have no issues whatsoever with the smooth transition of games and gamer culture from being nearly completely male-dominated for decades to one of gender balance which represents everyone fairly, if not equally.

In short, everyone needs to step back and take a god damned breather, put all this bullshit into perspective, and move on into the future. Trust me, it's going to be just fine for everyone involved with respect to games.

Do you honestly think that a business is going to sink billions of dollars in capital outlays to make a gigantic automated factory which produces crap that no one can buy?

If so, you're a fool. If not, then you realize one of the many things this simplistic view of the future missed in the video.

I like CGP Grey. He's very informative about many present and past (and some near-future) issues. However, this particular one I think he was ill-suited to address. That's not saying much, though; predicting the impact of technology on human culture has been an extremely difficult target for even the most pragmatic of the forward-lookers.

and, yes, there will be PLENTY of jobs for humans to perform DURING the period of transition. There will also be ample time to assess the real impacts (as opposed to this speculative one), and consider solutions to the problems created by a complete transition to automated means of production.

As with many overly-optimistic/pessimistic navel-gazes, there are numerous factors which were excluded from consideration in the video.

Beyond the simple fact that we're still quite far away from this post-human productivity apocalypse, considering the current state of the technology, the simple fact of the matter is that it will take a LOT of human physical and mental labor to bring it about. Even then, there will still be a need for humans to plan and make decisions, as well as deal with the exceptions that the machines still won't be able to cope with as yet.

So, while the video may be an interesting take on the subject matter, and it is something that we/should/ be mindful of going forward, I do not believe it is quite the existential threat the video makes it out to be.

So, basically, the "tuning" is just giving them a way to trade active cores for speed, changing on-the-fly without restarting. More cores active, slower speed each. Less cores active, faster speed each.

Kinda nifty, I think. Not sure why it should be limited only to Oracle, though. Seems like a performance idea with broad appeal and utility.

Certainly, that's why every system in every building needs to have multiple service entry points, multiple redundant electrical, plumbing, and HVAC systems, including at least two independent circuits for every load, including desk lamps!

Oh, wait, that's needlessly overbuilt.

Redundancy should only be necessary when and where it makes sense. I don't think this is one of those cases.

Though that marketing video, while "snazzy", is pretty pedestrian, as marketing videos go.

There are some bona fide "kid geniuses" out there who have done amazing things (though many with lots of help from family/friends/other adult geniuses). That said, there are 100 times more who talk a good line, but have nothing to show for it.

I'll wait until I see the goods before I pronounce anyone "kid genius".

I was aware, as I have read and cited the report here and elsewhere several times in the last year.

The report does NOT refute the argument. You're reading into it more than it actually says.

The report is flawed in this area, because no other political affiliations were checked to see if they were also targeted. The IG *ONLY* looked at "Tea Party" groups, and lamented this fact in his later congressional testimony. A more thorough and detailed review will likely reveal that there were a number of groups improperly targeted, not just "Tea Party" groups.

You'll also note on the next page, it says that quite a few groups which DO trigger the normal, acceptable criteria for special review were not sent to the unit. The whole process was more broken than it was politically selective.